Dog Bite Law |
||
| District of Columbia | ||
|
The District of Columbia has rejected the one-bite rule, but adheres to the ancient legal doctrine of contributory negligence. |
||
|
|
|
||||||||
Overview
Nevertheless, if the victim is one hundred percent blameless, a dog owner, keeper or handler will be presumed to be legally responsible for a dog attack in the District of Columbia. This is because D.C. Code section 8-1808 states that "[n]o person who has control or custody of a dog shall, direct, encourage, cause, allow or otherwise aid or assist that dog to threaten, charge, bite, or attack a person or other animal..." The violation of this statute results in a presumption of negligence on the part of the dog owner (i.e., it constitutes negligence per se). DC has several other poorly worded statutory provisions that seem to favor dog bite victims, but often fail to do so. These include a prohibition against dogs running at large, and a leash law. For example, DC prohibits a dog running at large, but the vague wording of the statute does not result in a presumption of negligence. The Court of Appeal held that a dog bite victim is not entitled to benefit from the doctrine of negligence per se because "D.C. Code sec. 6-1008(a) is too general a statute to be the subject of a negligence per se instruction." (Chadbourne v. Kappaz (2001) ___ Atlantic ___ , click here to read.) In that case, the dog owner admitted that her dog was running at large, but was allowed to present excuses for it. The Court of Appeal held that, to be liable under section 6-1008(a), the dog owner had to intentionally permit her dog to run at large, or negligently permit the dog to run free by failing to use reasonable care to comply with the statute.
Statutes of the District of Columbia
Litigation forms and other materials for attorneys
|
|
The District of Columbia
is unkind to accident victims in general, and dog bite victims are no exception.
DC adheres to the ancient and inhumane doctrine of contributory negligence.
This doctrine prevents a victim from receiving any compensation if his
or her conduct was even an insignificant cause of the accident. Other states
and countries have adopted the doctrine of comparative fault, which "compares"
the legal responsibility of the victim and the other parties, and provides
compensation to the victim in direct proportion to the comparative responsibility
of the parties (i.e., if the dog owner is 90% responsible and the victim
is only 10% responsible, then the victim's compensation is reduced by his
or her 10% of fault). The time has come for DC to get in step with the
rest of the country and replace contributory negligence with comparative
fault. 
